DaniWeb Forum Index > Software Development > C++

C++ RSS

Const Question - Why is this happening?

Please support our C++ advertiser: Intel Parallel Studio Home

Thread Solved

•

Join Date: Jan 2008

Posts: 3,810

Reputation: VernonDozier has a reputation beyond repute

Solved Threads: 501

VernonDozier VernonDozier is offline

Offline

Senior Poster

Const Question - Why is this happening?

Sep 27th, 2008

I've been experimenting around with the const modifier, trying to make sure I understand it and clearly I do not. I wrote this program. Note line 28, where I am changing the value of the parameter passed to a copy constructor, and the word const on line 40:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
 
 
class MyClass
{
public:
    int x;
 
    MyClass (int i)
    {
        x = i;
        cout << "In int constructor. x = " << x << endl;
    }
 
    MyClass (const MyClass& f)
    {
        cout << "In const copy constructor: f.x = "
             << f.x << endl;
        x = f.x;
    }
 
    MyClass (MyClass& f)
    {
        cout << "In non-const copy constructor pre-mutation: f.x = "
             << f.x << endl;
        x = f.x;
        f.x = 8;
         cout << "In non-const copy constructor post-mutation: f.x = "
              << f.x << endl;
   }
 
    ~MyClass ()
    {
        cout << "In destructor: x = " << x << endl;
    }
};
 
 
void Func (const MyClass f)
{
    cout << "Inside Func: f.x = " << f.x << endl;
}
 
int main ()
{
    MyClass f(4);
    cout << "In main before Func call: f.x = " << f.x << endl;
    Func (f);
    cout << "In main after Func call: f.x = " << f.x << endl;
 
    return 0;
}
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;


class MyClass
{
public:
    int x;

    MyClass (int i)
    {
        x = i;
        cout << "In int constructor. x = " << x << endl;
    }

    MyClass (const MyClass& f)
    {
        cout << "In const copy constructor: f.x = "
             << f.x << endl;
        x = f.x;
    }

    MyClass (MyClass& f)
    {
        cout << "In non-const copy constructor pre-mutation: f.x = "
             << f.x << endl;
        x = f.x;
        f.x = 8;
         cout << "In non-const copy constructor post-mutation: f.x = "
              << f.x << endl;
   }

    ~MyClass ()
    {
        cout << "In destructor: x = " << x << endl;
    }
};


void Func (const MyClass f)
{
    cout << "Inside Func: f.x = " << f.x << endl;
}

int main ()
{
    MyClass f(4);
    cout << "In main before Func call: f.x = " << f.x << endl;
    Func (f);
    cout << "In main after Func call: f.x = " << f.x << endl;
    
    return 0;
}

I have the const modifier on line 40, which I believed made it so f could not be changed and thus I believed would require a call to a copy constructor that couldn't change the parameter passed to it. I wrote a copy constructor that was allowed to change its parameter passed to it and one that wasn't allowed to, using the const keyword. Here's the output.

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
In int constructor. x = 4
In main before Func call: f.x = 4
In non-const copy constructor pre-mutation: f.x = 4
In non-const copy constructor post-mutation: f.x = 8
Inside Func: f.x = 4
In destructor: x = 4
In main after Func call: f.x = 8
In destructor: x = 8
In int constructor. x = 4
In main before Func call: f.x = 4
In non-const copy constructor pre-mutation: f.x = 4
In non-const copy constructor post-mutation: f.x = 8
Inside Func: f.x = 4
In destructor: x = 4
In main after Func call: f.x = 8
In destructor: x = 8

My question is: why was the non-const copy constructor called rather than the const copy constructor, given the word const on line 40? Thank you.

•

Join Date: Sep 2008

Posts: 273

Reputation: Sci@phy will become famous soon enough

Solved Threads: 42

Sci@phy

Offline

Posting Whiz in Training

Re: Const Question - Why is this happening?

Sep 27th, 2008

This is actually very interesting. Well, first thing, i managed to call const constructor by doing this to main:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
int main ()
{
    const MyClass f(4);
    cout << "In main before Func call: f.x = " << f.x << endl;
    Func (f);
    cout << "In main after Func call: f.x = " << f.x << endl;
    cin.get();
    return 0;
}
int main ()
{
    const MyClass f(4);
    cout << "In main before Func call: f.x = " << f.x << endl;
    Func (f);
    cout << "In main after Func call: f.x = " << f.x << endl;
    cin.get();
    return 0;
}

So, if u pass const object to Func, it will obviously trigger const constructor.

I'll post if i find out something new

•

Join Date: Sep 2008

Posts: 273

Reputation: Sci@phy will become famous soon enough

Solved Threads: 42

Sci@phy

Offline

Posting Whiz in Training

Re: Const Question - Why is this happening?

Sep 27th, 2008

Ok, I have an idea, but am not sure 100%.

When you write:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
void Func (const MyClass g)
void Func (const MyClass g)

You say to compiler: MyClass g (I changed a name from f, but it's irrelevant) will not change!

But, that const keyword is irrelevant of calling constructor.
When you write:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
MyClass (const MyClass& f)
MyClass (const MyClass& f)

You say to compiler: This constructor is going to GET object of type: const MyClass!

When you write inside a main function:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
MyClass a(3);
const MyClass b(a);
MyClass c(a);
 
Func(3); //you are calling int constructor that will create const MyClass g(3)
Func(b); //you are calling const constructor, that will create const MyClass g(b) because b is const
Func(c); //you are calling non-const constructor that will create const MyClass g(c) because c is non-const!
MyClass a(3);
const MyClass b(a);
MyClass c(a);

Func(3); //you are calling int constructor that will create const MyClass g(3)
Func(b); //you are calling const constructor, that will create const MyClass g(b) because b is const
Func(c); //you are calling non-const constructor that will create const MyClass g(c) because c is non-const!

•

Join Date: Jan 2008

Posts: 3,810

Reputation: VernonDozier has a reputation beyond repute

Solved Threads: 501

VernonDozier VernonDozier is offline

Offline

Senior Poster

Re: Const Question - Why is this happening?

Sep 27th, 2008

I think you are on to something here, though I'm still puzzled. I ran your revised program and it made the calls to the constructors you predicted it would. Is there something different about calling the copy constructor as opposed to another member function? For example, if I add this member function:

Help with Code Tags

(Toggle Plain Text)

void MyClass::DoSomething (MyClass& f)
{
}

and change my non-member function to this:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
void MyClass Func (const MyClass f)
{
     f.x = 10;
     f.DoSomething (f);
}
void MyClass Func (const MyClass f)
{
     f.x = 10;
     f.DoSomething (f);
}

I get errors on both lines because of the const stipulation, which is what I expected. I have to write function Func in a way that f can't be changed. But it IS changed when the function calls the non-const copy constructor.

Help with Code Tags

(Toggle Plain Text)

    MyClass (MyClass& f)
    {
        cout << "In non-const copy constructor pre-mutation: f.x = "
             << f.x << endl;
        x = f.x;
        f.x = 8;
         cout << "In non-const copy constructor post-mutation: f.x = "
              << f.x << endl;
    }

Note that the argument received by the copy constructor is the same as that received by the function DoSomething . The compiler doesn't allow DoSomething to be called because of the lack of the const modifier, but the call to the copy constructor is acceptable. So there must be some difference between a constructor and a regular old member function that allows this, but I don't know what it is.

•

Join Date: Sep 2008

Posts: 273

Reputation: Sci@phy will become famous soon enough

Solved Threads: 42

Sci@phy

Offline

Posting Whiz in Training

Re: Const Question - Why is this happening?

Sep 27th, 2008

I don't see why there should be any difference. When you write:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
void MyClass Func (const MyClass f)
//or even simply:
const MyClass f(some_MyClass_obj);
void MyClass Func (const MyClass f)
//or even simply:
const MyClass f(some_MyClass_obj);

And let's say we call Func:

Help with Code Tags

C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)

Func(some_other_MyClass_obj);

What happens? First let's see what happens in a function:
1. We put in a Func "some_other_MyClass_obj".
2. Program calls constructor to construct "f", a local object inside Func
3. Constructor is checking what are you giving to him. He is checking if "some_other_MyClass_obj" is of type const MyClass or simply MyClass, and then calls proper constructor function.
He doesn't care about line "const MyClass f", because after the "f" is constructed, it will be given const-ness.
4. f is made, and is given his const-ness.

OK, what happens in your recent functions, I'll try to explain.
You have a member function doSomething. That function takes MyClass as argument, and it can change it.
Of course you get error when you try to change f inside your non-member function, that's because f is const! But the important thing is that the const-ness is given AFTER constructor (it's obvious, because constructor HAS to change object!)
And the only thing that distincts your two constructors (for post before) is that one accepts one type of argument, and the other one accepts other type of argument.

•

Join Date: Jan 2008

Posts: 3,810

Reputation: VernonDozier has a reputation beyond repute

Solved Threads: 501

VernonDozier VernonDozier is offline

Offline

Senior Poster

Re: Const Question - Why is this happening?

Sep 27th, 2008

•

Originally Posted by Sci@phy

I don't see why there should be any difference. When you write:
Help with Code Tags

C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)
void MyClass Func (const MyClass f)
//or even simply:
const MyClass f(some_MyClass_obj);
void MyClass Func (const MyClass f) //or even simply: const MyClass f(some_MyClass_obj);
And let's say we call Func:
Help with Code Tags

C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)
Func(some_other_MyClass_obj);
Func(some_other_MyClass_obj);
What happens? First let's see what happens in a function:
1. We put in a Func "some_other_MyClass_obj".
2. Program calls constructor to construct "f", a local object inside Func
3. Constructor is checking what are you giving to him. He is checking if "some_other_MyClass_obj" is of type const MyClass or simply MyClass, and then calls proper constructor function.
He doesn't care about line "const MyClass f", because after the "f" is constructed, it will be given const-ness.
4. f is made, and is given his const-ness.

OK, what happens in your recent functions, I'll try to explain.
You have a member function doSomething. That function takes MyClass as argument, and it can change it.
Of course you get error when you try to change f inside your non-member function, that's because f is const! But the important thing is that the const-ness is given AFTER constructor (it's obvious, because constructor HAS to change object!)
And the only thing that distincts your two constructors (for post before) is that one accepts one type of argument, and the other one accepts other type of argument.

OK. This helps, thank you. I don't imagine anyone would ever actually write a class that, one, had two copy constructors, or two, changed the object being passed to it inside of the copy constructor. This was an exercise in trying to understand how const worked. My understanding is that you should always write your copy constructor as such:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
public MyClass (const MyClass& f)
{
     // code
}
public MyClass (const MyClass& f)
{
     // code
}

and that you'd never write this one:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
public MyClass (MyClass& f)
{
     // code
}
public MyClass (MyClass& f)
{
     // code
}

This question stems from a question I recently took on a test that basically said, "If you don't write a copy constructor, the compiler will implicitly write a copy constructor for you. What will that copy constructor look like?" I think I answered:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
public MyClass (const MyClass& f)
{
     // code
}
public MyClass (const MyClass& f)
{
     // code
}

as opposed to:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
public MyClass (MyClass& f)
{
     // code
}
public MyClass (MyClass& f)
{
     // code
}

I wasn't positive that was correct and I'm still not, so I started playing around with the program I first listed to try to figure out this question and some other const questions. Does anyone know whether I answered correctly? Sci@phy, thanks for the posts. They helped.

•

Join Date: Apr 2004

Posts: 4,335

Reputation: Dave Sinkula has a brilliant future

Solved Threads: 236

Dave Sinkula Dave Sinkula is offline

Offline

long time no c

Re: Const Question - Why is this happening?

Sep 27th, 2008

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....9e5fea271ef312 of any value?

"One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary." --Ayn Rand

•

Join Date: Jan 2008

Posts: 3,810

Reputation: VernonDozier has a reputation beyond repute

Solved Threads: 501

VernonDozier VernonDozier is offline

Offline

Senior Poster

Re: Const Question - Why is this happening?

Sep 27th, 2008

•

Originally Posted by Dave Sinkula

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....9e5fea271ef312 of any value?

Thanks. Well it shows an example of a const and non-const constructor, so that's relevant. I'm not using any pointers so deep versus shallow copy is not the issue here I don't think. The discussion seems to be efficiency in that thread rather than the ability to change an object, which is my question, and I didn't see anywhere where that is discussed.

•

Join Date: Jan 2008

Posts: 3,810

Reputation: VernonDozier has a reputation beyond repute

Solved Threads: 501

VernonDozier VernonDozier is offline

Offline

Senior Poster

Re: Const Question - Why is this happening?

Sep 28th, 2008

OK, I've been researching and the web pages I've visited all seem to say the implicit copy constructor generated by the compiler when you don't create one is:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
public MyClass (const MyClass& f)
{
     // code
}
public MyClass (const MyClass& f)
{
     // code
}

That is, with the const qualifier.

Wikipedia is usually my final arbiter, so I'll go with them, but if anyone actually knows and can confirm this, I'd definitely appreciate it!

•

Join Date: Jul 2008

Posts: 2,001

Reputation: ArkM has much to be proud of

Solved Threads: 343

ArkM

Offline

Postaholic

Re: Const Question - Why is this happening?

#10

Sep 28th, 2008

Thank you all participants for a very interesting discussion in the thread.
Some additions:
Let's remember what is a copy constructor in C++. Copy constructors are (C++ Std, 12.8):

•

A non-template constructor for class X is a copy constructor if its first parameter is of type X&, const X&, volatile X& or const volatile X&, and either there are no other parameters or else all other parameters have default arguments
...
Note: all forms of copy constructor may be declared for a class.

A compiler-generated (default) copy constructor always has const X& parameter. Some careful compilers print warnings if you have more than one copy constructor declared for a class (VC++ 9, for example, does it). I think, it's a very helpful warning in most of cases.

If a class has a copy constructor with X& parameter, this constructor works for non-const initializer (see the 1st post of the thread). It does not matter what "constantness" of initialized object (see an example with Func parameter binding).

So it's possible to modify a non-const only ARGUMENT object (initializer) via X& copy constructor of another object. Sometimes it's useful feature but as usually is an example of bad practice...

At the same time let's repeate that constantness of ordinar (free, not-member) functions parameters is not a part of function signatures. So it's an error to define two functions:

 Help with Code Tags 
 C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text) 
void F(X x) { ... }
void F(const X x) { ... }
void F(X x) { ... }
void F(const X x) { ... }

All static member functions are ordinar functions in C++.

Last edited by ArkM; Sep 28th, 2008 at 10:08 am.

Quick Reply to Thread

Show Printable Version

Similar Threads

A doubt in Type Conversion Program (C++)
C++ conceptual question (C++)

Other Threads in the C++ Forum

Previous Thread: Delete or Remove Array Element
Next Thread: problems with reading random access line from a file

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page

DaniWeb Message

Cancel Changes